About your Search

20121108
20121116
STATION
CSPAN 8
MSNBC 6
MSNBCW 6
CNNW 4
WHUT (Howard University Television) 4
CNN 3
CSPAN2 2
KQED (PBS) 2
WETA 2
WMPT (PBS) 2
KNTV (NBC) 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
WBAL (NBC) 1
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 52
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 52 (some duplicates have been removed)
couple months the president will have to remake his foreign policy team. needs a new secretary of state, needs a new treasury secretary which has a big foreign policy component and a question of tom donna lin whether he might become white house chief of staff or stay in his job. if general petraeus does go that's another big piece. implications in congress. more votes in the senate makes confirmation for new people easier but the choices the president has, we don't know, i don't know anyone who knows for sure what his choices were preelection or instincts, but he has to fill big jobs and that has implications for him between business and congress, and a second term agenda. we've seen second term foreign policy is a big ticket item for a president. >> brian williams, when we talk about the new team and this will be, you know, the next as mark halperin just pointed out, the next big play, who will be the cabinet officials, some people urged him senator john kerry the foreign relations chair, would be the best equipped for secretary of state, deval patrick in massachusetts would appoint a
time from a foreign policy standpoint to have petraeus out. scandals that are taking key players out of afghanistan, syrian discussions. country that the president has a lot going on right now. >> we were joking coming in that you have to stare at your blackberry because every five minutes something new happens. the one familiar aspect of the david petraeus scandal is that he had an affair. everything else about this story is weird, in the washington post. >> i was going to see skyfall this weekend. i'm going to stay at home and read the sunday times. this is totally bizarre. there's so much that we don't know, this fbi investigator. not just four people. there's an fbi and cia, infa infatuated with jill kelley >> let's get this straight. this guy works at the fbi, becomes infatuated. she gets shirtless photos of him allegedly. she goes to him and says i'm getting these weird e-mails. >> he takes this matter into a federal investigation you have to wonder. an fbi investigation if not for this one agent's involvement and especially him going to congress as a whistle blower saying it w
. the euphoria of re-election is quickly giving way to hard reality of governing with the foreign policy crisis bubbling from iran to syria. plus, lingering questions about the terror attack in benghazi, which will result in those three different house and senate committees, grilling administration officials next thursday. >> hopefully now that we're past the election the administration will do the right thing. coming up to the election they did notch they claim to be the most pope and transparent administration ever but they are not going the basics in sharing with congress this basic information. >> one of the three panels the house foreign affairs committee invited secretary of state hillary clinton to testify about the terror attack for the first time. >> we are very committed to working with the congress throughout the process. >> on the domestic front second term issues are as thorny, with the president pushing for bipartisan deal on immigration reform and that eluded several predecessors. his campaign manager conducted the time conference call of the election season today and did a victo
over among foreign policy experts? >> well, i think-- i mean, it's-- i think you have john kerry, or you have susan rice. and i think either one of them could be nominated and probably the foreign policy establishment would say that's fine. john kerry probably has more, but susan rice has served as u.n. ambassador and she's got know a lot of foreign experience, certain, from that experience. she's been at the state department bore, too. i mean, her history is in foreign policy. she hasn't opinion secretary of state. he hasn't been on the hill in the capacity john kerry is, but she certainly is experienced. >> reporter: the aforementioned general petraeus, a story that continues to rock this town. the president talked about it at the press conference, said it was a sad personal saga. actually said very nice things about david petraeus' contributions to his country, and also said-- i'm not sure the exact word he used-- but basically no top vent intelligen was revealed. >> i think he made a point of saying so far. and so far, there is not any negative effect on national security. bu
in foreign policy appetite in national security both on the part of the two parties and on the part of the american public. what do i mean when i say that? there is no appetite for another land war in asia or continuing the land war in asia we have in afghanistan and we saw in the concluded presidential campaigns that the candidate who had a wing of the party pushing to take the view we should be in afghanistan longer, that we should do more, something militarily in iran but continually pushed away from that by the more politically minded wing of the party reading internal polling that says there's not much difference on afghanistan between republicans and democrats so you don't have the demand side for the kind of military spending we have seen over the last decade and no longer have public outcry from military spending as a response to terrorism. the second point related to that which is a two edged sword is the public believes that there are cheaper technological solutions to our national security problem and the most obvious exponents of this is drones and other remote wrote --
the second-term challenges and then foreign policy including the situation in syria and iran and the latest fallout from benghazi ed henry is live at the white house. a lot of challenges from abroad. >>reporter: you talk about the fiscal cliff, they have that and after what has been happening with syria and that is play out with violence on the ground. assad will not give in. the euphoria from tuesday night, you talk to people inside the white house, they knew that is evaporating and we have to get down to business so today the president got a stream of calls from world leaders, including from the u.k., and david cameron, and binyamin netanyahu from israel, as well, congratulations, but, also, in doubt the phone calls, a lot of business being conducted with the president realizing particularly in the middle east there is a lot of major problems to confront. i am told by senior officials before election day the chief of staff, jack lou and others have been meeting and planning and if the president were re-elected they would have to hit the ground running on domestic issues and foreign policy
with our foreign policy. >> now, governor, senator mccain last month said -- well, let me let you hear what he said. this is amazing to me. >> it's very clear this was a colossal failure that cost the lives of four brave young americans. there has not been an intelligence fail like this in my lifetime and i have been around for a long time. >> there has not been an intelligence fail like this in his lifetime? what about 9/11? what about the iraq war with weapons of mass destruction where 3,000 americans died? what's he talking about? >> four americans are obviously four too many. but because our intelligence system broke down we went to war in iraq and over 3,000 americans died. how can he dare contrast those two? the thing that bugs me about this is there was a potential screw-up. we didn't have the right security in place in benghazi. susan rice had nothing to do with it. she wasn't in the chain of command. she didn't have any responsibility at all. all she did was go on television and, as you said, give the report that the cia had given to her. how can they pick on susan rice? why not wa
, economic, and fiscal issues. host: let's go to foreign policy because "the washington times" as this headline -- scott wilson, do you expect that he does that? troops on the ground? guest: i do not expect troops on the grand. as far as the president would go in syria, the next step is some kind of a no-fly zone. you will start seeing the model that he put in place and advocated for in libya. he is someone who moves incrementally. the next real step is the first plunge into military would be directly harming the rebels. they do not know the rebels that well. they do not want to start sending heavy weapons to groups that are clearly influenced by islamists. that has been one caution. the next step would be considering some kind of international no-fly zone like what took place in libya. host: iran pose a nuclear program? do we know what he might do? guest: i think in terms of old assertions of next steps, some of that may wait for the next secretary of state. this is something that the next secretary of state would be shepherding through and then stick it in somebody else's la
: let's go to foreign policy because "the washington times" as this headline -- scott wilson, do you expect that he does that? troops on the ground? guest: i do not expect troops on the grand. as far as the president would go in syria, the next step is some kind of a no-fly zone. you will start seeing the model that he put in place and advocated for in libya. he is someone who moves incrementally. the next real step is the first plunge into military would be directly harming the rebels. they do not know the rebels that well. they do not want to start sending heavy weapons to groups that are clearly influenced by islamists. so that has been one caution. then the next step would likely be considering some sort of international no-fly zone like what took place in libya. host: iran's nuclear program? do we know what he might do? guest: i think in terms of old assertions of next steps, some of that may wait for the next secretary of state. this is something that the next secretary of state would be shepherding through and then stick it in somebody else's lap. it is probably strategically
a major financial crisis and engulf us in a foreign policy that would overextend us and undermine our national security. to achieve these goals i thought the government would have had to shrink in size and scope, reduce spending, change the monetary system, and reject the unsustainable cost of policing the world and expanding the american empire. the problems seemed to be overwhelming and impossible to solve, yet from my viewpoint, just following the constraints based on the federal government by the constitution would have been a good place to start. just how much did i accomplish? in more ways according to conventional viss wisdom my off and on career in congress from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little. no named legislation, no named federal buildings or highways, thank goodness. in spite of my efforts the government has grown exponentially, taxes remain cessive, and a prolific increase of incomprehensible regulations continues. wars are constant, and pursued without congressional declaration, deficits rise to the sky, poverty is rampant, and dependency on the federal government
is also continuously focused on his foreign policy and national security agenda. he has great confidence in the acting cia director. he has confidence in his military and the secretary of defense and defense department to carry out the mission has easy signed to them. but he's got obviously a lot that he wants to get to work on, and he's doing that this week. >> how does this affect, though, his need to revamp the national security team. >> again, i think these are specific questions about specific individuals and posts. i can say now, even though you haven't asked, that i have no announcements to make with regards to personnel and no speculation to engage in. i can tell you that the president has not made a decisions on personnel matters and you will not hear me discuss them until the president has made those decisions and has announced them. >> jay, you're saying regarding two specific people you can't extrapolate. these are two military brass involved in extramarital affair or what might be called inappropriate behavior. is the president at all worried about an inappropriate culture i
looser marijuana restrictions and penalties, immigration reform, and less ha hawkish foreign policy. i think the president is hawkish enough. i have talked to rand paul a number of times, but does he have the influence within the gop to get much of that done? i imagine moderates in the party will look at him with some skepticism and then, of course, his tea party friends won't take too kindly to him abandoning their messages. is he really the guy for this? >> he sees that. this is a demographic problem for the republican party. what he said is, look. we have done well in the south, but we haven't done well in the west, in the northeast, and we haven't done well in the great lakes areas. we are a party that has support from the tea party conservatives, but he feels really strongly they need to broaden that message out to bring in a lot of younger voters, folks who supported his father's libertarian torch and rand paul wants to carry that torch as well. so look, he sees an opportunity to broaden the party's appeal to that demographic because, as we saw last week, that went heavily for th
, whether foreign or domestic policy this is the time for it. this is the time for transitions, where there's going to be at lot of turnover anyway. hillary clinton was leaving, leon panetta was leaving. do you want to deal with an additional moving part in petraeus and these circumstances? obviously not. but if there's going to be a time when things are going to be in chaos and you're going to have to be making decisions an moving ease pieces around the chess board it's the optimal time for it to happen. never a good time for this kind of scandal clearly, but if you would rather have had it now than five months from now or have it five months before now and it gives him a lot of flexibility in terms of how to fill those spots. there are a lot of players, we mentioned some of them just now, you did in the opening, a guy like chuck hagel, the president has trids to have a significant republican at a top position in his cabinet, before bob gates in the pentagon for the better part of the first term. i think he wants to do that again. his instinct towards not necessarily to hagel, although i t
part of the 20th century would bring us a major financial crisis and engulf us in a foreign policy that would overextend us and undermine our national security. to achieve these goals i thought the government would have had to shrink in size and scope, reduce spending, change the monetary system, and reject the unsustainable cost of policing the world and expanding the american empire. the problems seemed to be overwhelming and impossible to solve, yet from my viewpoint, just following the constraints based on the federal government by the constitution would have been a good place to start. just how much did i accomplish? in more ways according to conventional viss wisdom my off and on career in congress from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little. no named legislation, no named federal buildings or highways, thank goodness. in spite of my efforts the government has grown exponentially, taxes remain excessive, and a prolific increase of incomprehensible regulations continues. wars are constant, and pursued without congressional declaration, deficits rise to the sky, poverty is ramp
in recent foreign policy history is on tv defending david petraeus without actually addressing the real problems with david petraeus' record. those are the fact that he manipulated the white house into escalating afghanistan, he ran a campaign in iraq that was brutally savage, included arming, the worst of the worst. shiite death squads, sunni militiamen and go back to the training training that also had problems. to me, the questions of honor and integrity, i was raising those earlier. a number of other journalists covering petraeus were raising those concerns. you might not get that from someone at barbara starr at cnn who is essentially a spokesperson for the pentagon in many ways. so i think i just want to step back and have my piece because even the way the scandal is being covered is so different than how usual sex scandals are being covered where they hammer the guy. now everyone is saying oh, my god, he just went to the cia, how could he be, you know, he was susceptible to being seduced by this woman. give me a break. he has all his allies coming out to defend him where paula br
continuously focused on his foreign policy and national security agenda. he has great confidence in the acting cia director, confidence in his military and the secretary of defense and the defense department to carry out the missions that he's assigned to them. but he's got, obviously, a lot that he wants to get to work on and he's doing that this week. >> how does this affect, though, his need to revamp the national security team? >> again, these are specific questions about specific individuals and posts. i can say now, even though you haven't asked, i have no announcements to make with regards to personnel and no spec wlags to engage in. i can tell you the president has not made a decision on personnel matters and you will not hear me discuss them until the president has made those decisions and announced them. >> thank you. >> jay, you're saying these are regarding two specific people you can't extrapolate but these are two of the president's top military brass either involved in an extramarital affair or seemingly involved what might be inappropriate behavior. is the president as commande
an article calling the other fiscal cliff as foreign policy. the shake up on the foreign relations committees -- three of the chair and a ranking member being gone but if senator kerry would move positions it would be a complete clean slate on how often set aside and wondering how it affects the president's ability to build up the top line foreign policy issues, like syria and iran, but also others like foreign aid which has a nice rubber duckie on the catalog today. it helps pay our salaries. >> i think bob corker will be interesting as ranking member on foreign relations. he skipped the republican convention this summer to go to the middle east. and he has been doing a lot of traveling. he is super smart about these kinds of things. i think he will try to mold himself a little bit -- not completely, like dick lugar, honestly. he will be against the hawks i think on a number of occasions. we did a story recently about him and we had john mccain talk about how much -- how much he respected and although they did not always see eye to eye. but i think the foreign relations panel in both chamber
reality. now second, there has, in fact, been a significant shift in foreign policy appetite and national security appetite, both on the part of the two parties, and on the part of the american public. and what do we mean when i say that? there is no appetite for another land war in asia, and there's no appetite for a continuing to lead were in asia that we've still got in afghanistan. and we just saw in the concluded presidential campaign that the candidate who had a wing of his party clergy pledging them to take the view that we should be in afghanistan longer, that we should do more in syria, that we should do something militarily and iran was continually pushed away from that by the more political politically minded wing of his party that was reading an internal polling which said, there's not much difference particularly on afghanistan it when republicans and democrats. so you don't have the demand side, if you will for the kind of military spending that we've seen over the last decade. you know longer have a public outcry for military spending on this scale as a response to terroris
. she's the one -- she's a very talented diplomat. skilled foreign policy. she's been doing this for awhile. very well respected in the industry. suddenly she gets on tv, the administration -- she has a trusted face. she's given this from c.i.a. so the white house has said, what the c.i.a. has said and you know, it points to the video. that's what they had at the time. it is proven to be mostly false. there is -- clear bit of planning going on before that. but you know, so there is probably more upset than susan rice herself. and you know, you have the story of this -- she can't be nominated. for secretary of state or if you did, we would filibuster it but not using the word filibuster because that would be obstructionist. everything in our power. not going to use the magic word to actually stop it. >> john: they don't have to. they're very good at it and democrats let them. number one with the video. our embassy was attacked over that video. our embassy in cairo. and the american flag was torn down a fe
a different debate in this election, during this election that would have involved a judgment, foreign policy, management, competence, and a lot of other issues that were just never raised because nobody knew any of this. look, i actually spoke with general petraeus on september 10. i happened to be at the washington nationals game and there were a wunsch of wounded warriors there, we were all talking to them. i spent five minutes talking to petraeus, secretary or third time maybe i met him. nice guy, great guy. this is not about whether he's a nice person or he served his country proudly. this is about the fact that the american people were not told and the president apparently is not being forth coming about this, about what the f.b.i. knew, why they were investigating private e-mail accounts after six or seven jaraing e-mails were sent. why is the f.b.i. even looking into those? >> gretchen: that's my question because according to these source, they say it was a close call as to whether or not the f.b.i. should have even opened a case initially. so something is not being told about that wh
gets this foreign policy team together for a second term, not to mention the fact he would rather be focusing now on the fiscal cliff. >> and he is having a news conference tomorrow at 1:30 p.m. eastern from the white house. he is going to be bombarded with questions on this. not exactly the way he wanted to start that news conference, i am sure. thanks very much, gloria. >> sure. >>> she's the florida woman described by one source as bored, a bored, rich socialite. now jill kelley is caught up in this widening scandal. i will ask the head of the intelligence committee, dianne feinstein what she knows about this woman. my interview with senator feinstein next. >> her name has come into question, let me put it that way. [ male announcer ] in blind taste tests, even ragu users chose prego. prego?! but i've bought ragu for years. [ thinking ] wonder what other questionable choices i've made? i choose date number 2! whooo! [ sigh of relief ] [ male announcer ] choose taste. choose prego. but lately she's been coming in with less gray than usual. what's she up to? [ female announcer ]
foreign policy because presidents have a lot more unilateral movement, authority in that zone, and so you get a lot of important things. ronald reagan cut a very important deal with mikhail gorbachev. president clinton almost got a middle east peace deal. so looking at how we deal with iran and even the unforeseen challenges overseas is going to be really important. >> you've written a book about thomas jefferson, your latest biography. how is thomas jefferson relevant today beyond the obvious that he was the founder of the country, why should we still be interested about thomas jefferson's life in 2012? >> because he would have totally understood the washington -- john boehner, harry reid, and barack obama. he was a tall, cool, cerebral president who won re-election who was actually really good at politics even though he didn't want to act as though he was. so there are some similarities with president obama. jefferson was the greatest politician of the early american republic, and he understood how to get things done. in a ferociously partisan atmosphere he knew how to be a pragmatist,
republican strategy? they are social, economic, and foreign policy, fully embracing each one. what we had was one wobbly leg with about $1 billion from the republican side from the top of the ticket and affecting every other senate race in the country because of that influence. when fully engaged, each of those policy areas, a real mandate is created, and there is a resonance that brings public policy leaders into office so those areas can be implemented, without fully engaging on each of those areas and social policy, we leave the votes on the table every single time. what we had was a factor truth on social issues on one side but a full embrace of the war on social issues on the other side. obama have launched a war over abortion and the life issue. therefore, he got to completely decide what the issue was, and what is it? rape. abortion and rape in the minds of many voters, because the debate was not fully engage. his weaknesses, is extreme positions on late storm abortions -- late term abortions, i'm not saving children born after a failed of abortion, none of these were explored in a
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 52 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)